Strategy, the pivot, the military girding of that is largely the u. S. Navy and the central that makes much sense if the navy is stable in size or growing because otherwise you have 60 of a smaller force that may be less than 50 of the old force and if you do the math, sequestration is roughly at the crossover point. In other words, it would force a reduced fleet size if it was to stay over longterm, which would be in the range of lets say 240, 250 ships, maybe less and 60 of that is no improvement. Relative to 50 of where we are today. Which is about 285 ships. Its more or less a watch. If you are trying to send a signal, you have taken the ability away by sequestration. Thats a clear way and a reason im against sequestration. I dont think we need a build up, but a nice, steady, real increase would be, to me, a good thing. Over to you. Thank you. If i had a real good answer for the question, id probably call the secretary of defense this afternoon and let him know, but its a very important question. It has to do with the entire military Industrial Complex in this country. By the time the latest Aircraft Carrier is deployed, its probably going to be a 20 million machine. If you count the air crew thats on board. I dont know that even the United States is going to be able to afford that in the long range. Thats her serks y heresy as you know. The foreign Presence Point mike has just addressed is really critical. It goes to much more important longterm, the rest of century or mid century, strategic question for the United States. Are we going to be able to afford or should we maintain the presence that all of us have talked about a little bit here . Do we need in the case for instance, trying to look ahead to see the status of japan, korea, whether unified or not, china and so forth, is it going to be necessary or worthwhile for the u. S. To maintain a military presence in northeast asia . Just one example. I think one could argue its not. It would not be necessary. Your final point though i think goes back to something, several, maybe almost 20 years worth, trying to engage more active participation by our allies to maintain the foreign presence that we believe to be necessary today. I think he was one of the navy, for instance, the idea being we rely on our allies. Thats more than relying on the Japanese MaritimeDefense Force on or the republic of south korea. Which obviously and understandably is very focused to the north. Once, should the peninsula be unified, i dont believe the rationale believing that seoul would want to extend military participation much beyond the peninsula. As far as Southeast Asia is concerned, i think once again, geography counts very much and at the first sign, should it become apparent that the u. S. Forward prens is going to become a declining ford presence, i think were going to see a shift in Foreign Policy by those nations. Final thoughts. I just want to emphasize again that our economy is starting to grow. In the short run to grow about 3 in real terms. So we have the capacity to spend administer money. Just because we have the capacity, doesnt mean we should do it. As the economy expands, it makes sense theres more infrastructure needs, education and potentially, more National Security needs. Im not the person qualified to talk about that, but as the economist in the group, theres certainly the potential to spend more resources and in many of these areas i know, like infrastructure and education, if you dont spend money, the whats going to happen is the economy is going to slow down and youve basically shot yourself in the foot. So i hope we dont get stuck in in a moment in history where we feel we have to hold spending or constant in terms when in fact our economy is at a a sustainable level and our economys growing well, so we have the potential to meet needs that will continue to make our economy grow well. So, let me take the prerogative of the chair to thank you all for being here. To ask you as ive been told, if youre going to stay at brookings, enjoy our cafeteria across the hallway. We are asked to leave this room fairly quickly because they have to get ready for susan rice. To wish my mom a happy 80th birthday, but to ask you to join me in thank youing the panel for an excellent presentation. [ applause ] the Supreme Court is set to hear the oral arguments in king versus burrwell, a case challenging the subsidies on the Affordable Care act. Then more about the Affordable Care act and subsidies with Mary Agnes Carrey of Washington Health news. Washington journal is live at 7 a. M. Eastern on c span. You can join the conversation with your comments and phone calls. The c span cities tour takes American History tv on the road, traveling to u. S. Cities to learn about their history and literary life. Weve partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. People throng to the beach, the rising tide drew them. They watched in amazement as both of these factors battered the beach structures. At that time, we had wooden bath houses ought over the gulf of mexico. We had piers and we have a huge pavilion. As the storm increased in intensity, these beach structures literally were turned into match sticks the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday, september 8th, 1900. The storm began toward noon, increased in dramatic intensity, and then finally tapered off toward midnight that evening. This hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the United States. Watch all of our events from galveston, saturday at noon eastern on c span 2 book tv and sunday afternoon at 2 00 on American History tv on c span 3. Up next, british Prime MinisterDavid Cameron takes questions from a parliamentary committee. From london, this runs 50 minutes. Welcome, Prime Minister, this session will have two parts to it. One on foreign affairs. Which well deal with countries affected by islamic extremism and ukraine and in the second part of the session, well be dealing with the capacity and flexibility of the Civil Service and the machinery of government. Afternoon. Can we return to the subject of sanctions against russia which you touched on to your statement yesterday afternoon. Its very important that the eu speaks with one voice towards on policy towards russia especially on sanctions. The sanctions are due to expire at the end of july and i believe you are trying to get an earlier agreement. But there are a number of different positions inside europe. People like germany and ourselves are taking quite a hard line. Some are in the middle and some are actually rather hostile to it, like greece and hungary. How are we going to approach this in order to try to get u. N. Unanimity . It is going to be difficult because when these sanctions expire you need unanimity to renew them. There is one set that have to be renewed in july and another set s renewed in september. There is a case, as i said yesterday in the commons, to bring forward the renewal particularly if there is further action by russian separatists on the ground. There is an argument to bring them forward in order to make a very strong statement, bring it forward. The way to achieve unamity is to point people to the facts. We gathered at the European Council last time after angela merkel, Francois Hollande came from that meeting to greet the foreign counsel. What happened after that was the horrors of veltsvagrade. I think we need to use all our diplomatic and other skills and efforts to convince those that have been more skeptical about sanctions that its only a firm stand that will be taken notice of in the kremlin. Thats what we should do. Weve got some time to do it. Britain has quite an Important Role to play in all of that. We have been, as i put it, the sort of strong pole in the tent in terms of sanctions. We should continue to play that role. Are you optimistic that they will be extended . I think im always optimistic. I think some of it will depend on what happens on the ground. I think that if, miraculously, heavy weapons are withdrawn, ceasefires are held, elections start, all the elements are put in place, i think you will see people wanting to lighten the sanctions load. But if we dont see that, youll get a different view. But as i said, britains role is to be at the tougher end of the spectrum to try to keep the European Union and United States together. I think we should be clear about this pattern of behavior weve seen from putin now over many years. Thats the argument when im at the European Council table, thats the argument i make. Do you think you will simply extend them or deepen them to make them tougher . I think the extension should happen in any event, even if not very much changes on the ground. They should be deepened if further steps of destabilization are taken. I think particularly people will be looking at mariopol as the next potential flash point. Personally i think the argument for further action would be overwhelming and i think that would be the view of countries like poland, the Baltic States and many others and i think wed have to argue very strongly that if you stand back from all this, what is the argument we are making . Of course there is shortterm pain when you put sanctions on a country. There is shortterm pain to your own economies but the point i would make is in the medium to long term, countries of europe depends on a rulesbased system where people obey the rules and the instability we will yield if we dont stand up to russia in the long term will be deeply damaging to all of us because youll see further destabilization. Next it will be moldova or one of the Baltic States. That sort of instability and uncertainty will be dreadful for our economies, dreadful for our stability. And thats why britain takes such a clear view. The foreign secretary said the other day that russia can no longer be considered a Strategic Partner to the eu. Doesnt this cause us a few problems, because as a permanent member of the Security Council, russia, theyre involved in a number of global issues. In particular, iran, syria, afghanistan. How do we square this circle . I think thats a very good question. I dont think russia is behaving like a Strategic Partner to the European Union. Thats absolutely right so we should be very tough on this issue. Look, where we are working together, as we are with the approach to iran, we should continue to work together. It is very important that iran doesnt get a nuclear weapon. It is very important we keep a long timeline between wherever they are now and a nuclear weapon. Russia has the same interest as us in that. So it is perfectly possible to have a very tough approach over sanctions is, over the overall relationship, while when it comes to iran continuing to work in this format of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus germany. Can we move to the baltics and the use of article 5 . If the russians start to destablize the region through media disinformation, proxy warfare, does article 5 offer them any protection . I think the protection they are offered in those circumstances is that we are friends, were allies, were colleagues. Already weve sent british planes to do the baltic air policing. We work very closely with their intelligence and security services, very fruitfully, too, on things like cyber. Well work with them and help them strengthen their defenses. So they know and maybe we need to do more to emphasize this. They know that in britain they have a got a very strong friend. I think if you talk to latvia, lithuania and estonia leaders, you will hear that very strongly. Implementing article 5 is a political decision rather than a military one. What would it take to say the line in the sands been drawn, if militia started operating just over the border in the Baltic States. Would that be considered a breach of article 5, and in which case what would our reaction be . I think thats a very good question. I dont want to give some unthoughtthrough answer. But we are committed to their collective defense. Where they are being destabled, we would intervene and help them with their stability. Where theyre being cyber attacked, wed help them with their cyber defenses. I think we need to do more, frankly, in the area of information. One of the complaints you get from the Baltic States that theres nothing to counter the deluge of sort of russian paid and bad media spreading this information. We have to recognize one of the strengths weve got as a country, we have a very strong and impartial media. We have a wonderful brand in the bbc thats known for its impartial news and we should be supporting the bbc to provide News Services and news channels where people otherwise are getting a diet of russian disinformation. Going back to the question though, if militia activity did start over the border, would we consider that a breech of article 5 . We would consider those sorts of threats to states, we would consider that something that we would be helping them to defend against. How would you respond to russian incursions into airspace and territorial waters . Do we shrug it off or do we treat it as more serious threat to our ability to respond . Of course its serious because we defend our airspace very carefully. And we have the resources, pilots, planes, the Information Systems to do just that. I think we should be careful that in our response we are clear, firm, calm. Im sure the russians would like us to react in a more sort of volumeless way. I was checking on the figures. So far, last year we scrambled our planes twice. Last year it was eight times. In 2007, it was 19 occasions. I think we should be strong, measured and clear but we should be absolutely confident that in our air force and in the typhoons and pilots that we have we have 125 typhoon now in service we are more than capable of protecting our airspace. The defense secretary had something to say about both of these points during his briefing to the times and the telegraph. Was he misunderstood or was he spoton when he said there was a real and present danger of russian activity in the Baltic States, of the kind that have been referred to . I think hes right to highlight the fact that the Baltic States feel this pressure very greatly. And they dont always feel the rest of europe understands them. From where they sit, theyre having russian sanctions against some of their goods. On lithuanian cheese. Theyre having Russian Media blast them into their airspace. They often have Cyber Attacks. They are subject to a lot of destabilization and they want their nato partners, friends and allies to understand that. Thats why they welcome us. As i said yesterday we have 4,000 british troops taking part in exercises in eastern europe. We have the baltic air patrol missions. We are doing a lot to reassure them they are full members of nato. They get nato protection in every way and were with them whether they face these struggles. So real and present danger are the right words. Look, i think he spoke very clearly, and as i say, hes right to talk about the threats they feel. Not only incursions into our airspace, you said of the cold war in relation to that that it looks like its warming up. Is that spoton . Look, ive given you the figures. Clearly, as i said the other day, i think the russians are trying to make some sort of point. Not sure entirely what the point is. I believe reacting very calmly, reasonably. Look, we should be confident of our strengths. Our economy is going. The russian economy is shrinking. Our economy is not wholly dependent on oil. The russian economy is wholly dependent on oil. Our country has a robust Free Democratic political system with freedom of speech and all sorts of rights that people only dream of in russia. Lets have the confidence. Our economy is bigger than russia. Even though the population is many times the size of ours. Our economy is fully capable of support the fifth largest Defense Forces in the world. They are highly capable. We dont have all sorts of Legacy Assets that dont work anymore. Lets have confidence. When we look at the situation, terrible though it is in ukraine, let us not talk ourselves into some idea that this has been a fantastic success for russia. It hasnt been. The people of ukraine have voted to try to have a more open, democratic, less corrupt, trading and other relationship with the countries of the European Union. We shouldnt talk a couple of russian planes fly around the channel. We shouldnt sort of talk ourselves into sort of a situation where we think somehow we cant defend ourselves. We absolutely can. Wars between states tend to start when one side doesnt understand the position being taken by the other or indeed both. Dont you think we have to have a pretty clear understanding of what russias intentions are and doesnt president beauty putin need to understand that nato will respond ziefle it desies ifly. Yes. If a country of nato is attacked, its an attack on one is an attack on all. That is nate troe doctrine. I sign up to it absolutely. We are a leading player in nato in terms of troops and everything else. What exactly as i say, if theres a cyber attack on a baltic state, as far as im concerned, yes, that